The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for remedy by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the fact-misunderstanding vehicle interest and the transfer of money in the name of vehicle price (the crime No. 1-A. 1 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below), the Defendant’s transfer of money in the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s trade company G car trading company (hereinafter “automobile trading company”) was established, since there was an agreement between the Defendant and its partners to lend the automobile purchase fund to the endr and to bear the responsibility of the partners in the event of loss in connection with the loan, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

As to the point of occupational breach of trust (crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court below), the defendant and its partners agreed to deposit the value-added tax into the automobile trading company only in extremely exceptional cases, and since N and E did not deposit the value-added tax just with the defendant even though they sold a number of vehicles than the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the crime of occupational breach of trust is established only for the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact: ① The Defendant did not directly lend the purchase price for the vehicle leased to the automobile dealer to the Defendant, but the Defendant lent the vehicle to the automobile dealer and lent it to the automobile dealer by the Defendant, and the loss incurred therefrom was agreed that all partners are responsible.

However, the defendant was in a partnership relationship with the defendant.

E, N, andO (hereinafter referred to as "E, etc.") agree with each other and state that the purchase price of the vehicle is directly lent to the Defendant with the Defendant, and that there is no agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and the statement of E, etc. has been made after the investigation agency.